Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

The Political Philosophies

Author Message
MarcusAquila
Member
*


Posts: 125
Words count: 18,923
Group: Basic
Joined: Aug2012
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 50
Glory Points: 25
Medals: 2

Post: #1
The Political Philosophies

For most of the history of human governments, there have been three main political philosophies and in America, they are typified by the three most influential parties.

Democrats/Liberalism
Republicans/Conservatism
Libertarians/Laissez-faire

Democrats and liberals are generally typified by the amount of freedom they give to the social realm (ie abortion, sexual orientation, welfare, etc) but are very strict when it comes to economics (ie "tax the rich" and corporations are evil). Democrats/liberals tend to believe that money corrupts, not morals (or lack thereof).

Republicans are just the opposite. They are strict when it comes to the social realm (no abortion, gay rights, limited/no welfare) but very lax when it comes to economics (no capital gains tax, less taxes). Republicans/Conservatives tend to believe that morals (or lack thereof corrupt) not money.

Libertarians/Laissez-faire are the oddballs. They are lax towards both the social and economic realms. They believe that neither money nor morals corrupt, rather it is attitude (or so most Libertarians I've talked to have told me).

However there is an interesting fourth school of thought that really hasn't been discussed. I have no idea what to label it as (I called it Realpolitik in honor of Bismark). It is strict control over the social realm and the economic realm. This group does not believe that people can "be made better" or that society is on a march towards progression because that would be in violation of the Laws of Entropy. This group applies science towards governance. All human societies start off then die. Even Rome, Confucian China, and in time, the US. However, humans (and politicians) can slow or temporarily reverse this regressive state of man.
Most people don't understand this school (in some ways, I've kinda came up with it on my own and am still trying to figure it out). But how it would function is that the State would require the observance of Natural Law in the social realm (aka no stealing, lying, murdering, etc). I personally believe (as do many other prominent people) that there is a Natural/Higher Law that can be found (and indeed observation of Higher Law, intentional or not, is found in all societies through all time). This is pretty much how the social realm is governed.
For the economic realm, the State would assist the private sector. I always thought that either the sole State/sole private sector or state vs business was foolish and counter productive. The state has authority and resources that the private sector does not and the private sector has innovation and the brains/capital that the state does not (and does not know how to use efficiently). For example, the state ensures strong patent protection so citizens develop inventions that will benefit everyone in the state (and thus, benefit the state). The state can provide common sense tax strategies or maybe develop new tax programs that actually work. The private sector helps out by using resources in the most efficient manner possible. Case in point, Amtrak is a horrible waste of money that probably could get scrapped because I doubt even a private corporation can make it profitable unless. However, what the state could do is make Amtrak privately owned and tax free as well as allow industrial freight trains and passenger trains to share the same tracks (which is illegal in some states requiring expensive duplication of track). Instead of the state fighting corporations and vice versa, they should be working together. Imagine if gov and export businesses sat down and discussed ways to increase exports or deal with unfair trade with China. If the gov sat down and talked with healthcare professionals and allowed THEM to develop affordable health insurance plans or allowed POH (physician owned hospitals) to emerge instead of banning them (which actually happened under the new healthcare law in America).

Does anyone have an actual example of this fourth category in action? Or attempted.


The hand of the aggressor is stayed by strength and strength alone.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower

I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison
09.09.2012 22:20
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #2
RE: The Political Philosophies

What you described is not new, it's called the third or middle way and it belongs to the 20th century. It's a different card, but ultimately, it belongs to the same deck. There are no Laws of Entropy to be applied to human society or human development. Entropy is a hoax, it's only valid in closed systems. The universe, like the world, is an open system. It's quite antientropic/creative in nature, life is antientropic, human creative reason i.e. the noosphere is antientropic. Man's evolution as an energy creator and user species is inherently antientropic. Not any person, party or movement, claiming to follow or promote Natural Law is actually following it or even understanding it. Look up the american so called natural law party, that is totally against nuclear energy. There is no natural, moral or scientific reason to be against the use and mastering of nuclear processes. Also, not every interpretation of Natural Law is correct or moral. Grotius tried to excuse war crimes, by quoting the bible "blessed is he who dashes the heads of the children, of the babylonians, against the rocks." Emmerich Vattel slams Grotius heavily on this. Wolf in this respect is no better, though, he claimed to be a follower of Leibniz, his views are completely alien to those of Leibniz. Vattel's The Law of Nations are the best books to inquire about Natural Law. You can find it here http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm A lot of american statesmen had Vattel's books. Alexander Hamilton found Vattel's writings to be the best, compared to all the other constitutionalists and philosophers that wrote on Natural Law.
Worthwhile alternatives for the current corrupt and criminal system are (in my opinion): LaRouche's physical economy, or credit system, i.e. what was once called the american system of political economy, and the technocratic solutions.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/
http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Welcome
Both systems are a valid alternative, the former puts a little more emphasis on leibnizian principles, while the latter is more dedicated to the technical side of things. Either way, both their goals and argumentations converge.

Friedrich List wrote:``On a Railway System in Saxony as the Foundation of a General German Railway System,'' which appeared in the year 1833:

``People say that we do not have, here in our region, any such an amount of capital, not so much ready money for undertaking such a gigantic national work.... As for the financial point, we need not fear any further objection from sensible people, once it is pointed out that the capital so used bears the highest interest rate of return in the country. With that as a premise, no expense can be found that is too great. Furthermore, Saxony, if it is serious about the undertaking, will have at its disposal more than a hundred times more capital and cash than required. That North America possesses more capital and more cash, is not even true; most of the settling of accounts there, is done with paper money, which we can create just as well here in Saxony. Here an amount of 4 to 6 million bank-issued bills of exchange make up one-third of the currency in circulation, while in North America, there are two and three times as many of these notes in circulation than ready cash.''
........................
``People will probably ask me, where will Bavaria get the money to complete such giant works [railways]? I answer, that I have not yet seen any silver or gold in any of the canals or railways. To build them we use only consumer goods, steel, stones, wood, manpower, the power of animals. But is there not a surplus of all this in Bavaria? To the extent that we transform this surplus into canals and railways, which are not yet in existence, we create permanent and enduring value, we create an instrument which doubles the productive power of the entire nation. The money, however, does not leave the country, it only settles accounts.''

Friedrich List was an economist of the historic school and railroad engineer; he was a proponent of the american system of political economy, he was an antimalthusian, and believed that educators were the most important people in any society, because they formed (thought) future generations.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 09.09.2012 23:02 by Helsworth.

09.09.2012 22:45
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #3
RE: The Political Philosophies

MarcusAquila,

While you have the theory almost correct you need to realize things are different on practice.

The 'common man' often heards how the Republicans are the 'bad guys' and the Democrats work towards 'peace and cooperation'. Yet none will take the time to realize that the Vietnam war was caused by a Democrat. Put simply they are the same thing, as show in this page regarding legislation support:

http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

10.09.2012 00:08
Quote this message in a reply
Sheep
Admin
******


Posts: 13,199
Words count: 691,655
Group: Admin
Joined: Jan2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 252
Experience: 5731
Glory Points: 195
Medals: 8

Post: #4
RE: The Political Philosophies

MarcusAquila Wrote:
Does anyone have an actual example of this fourth category in action?


Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China? Pfeif

They were all very restrictive in both society and economics, after all. Yes, they didn't use natural law as explicit excuse for their cruelties, so technically a human-friendly version of this fourth way might be possible.

My problem with natural law is: I didn't find a definition what rules exactly apply. So, what does natural law mean, for a real society, in your opinion?


This post was last modified: 10.09.2012 00:48 by Sheep.

10.09.2012 00:46
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MarcusAquila
Member
*


Posts: 125
Words count: 18,923
Group: Basic
Joined: Aug2012
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 50
Glory Points: 25
Medals: 2

Post: #5
RE: The Political Philosophies

@Sheep, all three of those nations were against Natural Law. For example, both Europe and China developed a Right of Kings/Mandate of Heaven independently of each other. All three cultures and cultures all over the world developed "don't lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc" without being forced to. In those three examples, all of them tolerated the killing of their political opponents and then looting their possessions. Not only that, they expanded to killing/looting their neighbors and plunging the world into WWII. If they followed Natural Law, they would have done none of those things. Think about it, don't you find it unnatural to kill people based on their race? religion? Isn't there something just wrong with what Stalin or Mao or Hitler did?

In my opinion, Natural Law and common law are very much the same. Over time, usually through experiences and trial/error, societies "find" what works and what doesn't. Having a society where murdering is legal will eventually result in the dying out of that society. Tolerating stealing will lead to unproductive people and apathy.

Here is a more "definition" style answer:

"Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior." - Wikipedia

"The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale." - Legal Dictionary


The hand of the aggressor is stayed by strength and strength alone.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower

I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison
10.09.2012 01:17
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sheep
Admin
******


Posts: 13,199
Words count: 691,655
Group: Admin
Joined: Jan2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 252
Experience: 5731
Glory Points: 195
Medals: 8

Post: #6
RE: The Political Philosophies

MarcusAquila Wrote:
Think about it, don't you find it unnatural to kill people based on their race? religion? Isn't there something just wrong with what Stalin or Mao or Hitler did?


It's natural to fight for rare ressources. As soon as humans were able to create tools, they used them for wars, including mass murder and rape. Some monkey species aren't nicer - they just don't have the tools for real wars.

At least Hitler (in his delusion) was convinced he fights for necessary living room, which is a rare ressource.

Additionally, it's natural to be cautious when encountering something unknown. Because in nature new things are always potentially harmful. Depending on personal experience it might become an outright fear of things which are "different" (like race and religion), something any dictator can use for his evil purposes.

I don't see a point in glorifying natural behaviour. It has some dark sides, as well as civilized behaviour has. Well, it might make more sense to take the bright sides of both...

Quote:
Having a society where murdering is legal will eventually result in the dying out of that society. Tolerating stealing will lead to unproductive people and apathy.


Ok. But these rules are quite simplified. "Murder is illegal" doesn't work, if a group has to defend itself with military means. "Stealing is illegal" is questionable also - the person who stole might be a valueable member of society else, so overly harsh penalties harm society.


10.09.2012 03:09
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #7
RE: The Political Philosophies

You're right Sheep, that's why the distinction between simple legalism and Natural Law must be made. Natural Law is first and foremost a moral law, and it's not imposed upon human society by any outside higher principle. That higher principle exists, however, it remains in the hands of the free will of people to choose to live their lives and treat others according to that moral law.
Here's Vattel's chapter from Book II

BOOK II OF A NATION CONSIDERED IN ITS RELATION TO OTHERS

CHAP. I. OF THE COMMON DUTIES OF A NATION TOWARDS OTHERS; OR, OF THE OFFICES OF HUMANITY BETWEEN NATIONS.

§ 1. Foundation of the common and mutual duties of nations.

THE following maxims will appear very strange to cabinet politicians; and such is the misfortune of mankind, that, to many of those refined conductors of nations, the doctrine of this chapter will be a subject of ridicule. Be it so; but we will, nevertheless, boldy lay down what the law of nature prescribes to nations. Shall we be intimidated by ridicule, when we speak after Cicero? That great man held the reins of the most powerful state that ever existed; and in that station he appeared no less eminent than at the bar. The punctual observance of the law of nature he considered as the most salutary policy to the state. In my preface, I have already quoted this fine passage — Nihil est quod adhuc de republica putem dictum, et quo possim longius progredi, nisi sit confirmatum, non modo falsum esse illud, sine injuria not posse, sed hoc verissimum, sine summa justitia rempublicam regi non posse.1 I might say on good grounds, that, by the words summa justitia, Cicero means that universal justice which consists in completely fulfilling the law of nature. But in another place he explains himself more clearly on this head, and gives us sufficiently to understand that he does not confine the mutual duties of men to the observance of justice, properly so called. "Nothing," says he, "is more agreeable to nature, more capable of affording true satisfaction, than, in imitation of Hercules, to undertake even the most arduous and painful labours for the benefit and preservation of all nations." Magis est secundum naturam, pro omnibus gentibus, si fieri possit, conservandis aut juvandis, maximos labores molestiasque suscipere, imitantem Herculem illum, quem hominum fama, beneficiorum memor, in concilium cœlestium collocavit, quam vivere in solitudine, non modo sine ullis molestiis, sed, etiam in maximis voluptatibus, abundantem omnibus copiis, ut excellas etiam pulchritudine et viribus. Quocirca optimo quisque et splendidissimo ingenio longe illam vitam huic anteponit.2 In the same chapter, Cicero expressly refutes those who are for excluding foreigners from the benefit of those duties to which they acknowledge themselves bound towards their fellow-citizens. Qui autem civium rationem dicunt habendam, externorum negant, hi dirimunt communem humani generis societatem; qua sublata, beneficentia, liberalitas, bonitas, justitia, funditus tollitur; quæ qui tollunt, etiam adversus Deos immortales impii judicandi sunt; ab Us enim constitutam inter homines societatem evertunt.

And why should we not hope still to find, among those who are the head of affairs, come wise individuals who are convinced of this great truth, that virtue is, even for sovereigns and political bodies, the most certain road to prosperity and happiness? There is at least one benefit to be expected from the open assertion and publication of sound maxims, which is, that even those who relish them the least are thereby laid under a necessity of keeping within some bounds, lest they should forfeit their characters altogether. To flatter ourselves with the vain expectation that men, and especially men in power, will be inclined strictly to conform to the laws of nature, would be a gross mistake; and to renounce all hope of making impression on some of them, would be to give up mankind for lost.

Nations, being obliged by nature reciprocally to cultivate human society (Prelim. § 11), are bound to observe towards each other all the duties which the safety and advantage of that society require.

§ 2. Offices of humanity, and their foundation.

The offices of humanity are those succours, those duties, which men owe to each other, as men, — that is, as social beings formed to live in society, and standing in need of mutual assistance for their preservation and happiness, and to enable them to live in a manner conformable to their nature. Now, the laws of nature being no less obligatory on nations than on individuals (Prelim. § 5), whatever duties each man owes to other men, the same does each nation, in its way, owe to other nations (Prelim. § 10, &c). Such is the foundation of those common duties — of those offices of humanity — to which nations are reciprocally bound towards each other. They consist, generally, in doing every thing in our power for the preservation and happiness of others, as far as such conduct is reconcilable with our duties towards ourselves.

§ 3. General principle of all the mutual duties of nations.

The nature and essence of man, who, without the assistance of his fellow-men, is unable to supply all his wants, to preserve himself, to render himself perfect, and to live happily, plainly show us that he is destined to live in society, in the interchange of mutual aid; and, consequently, that all men are, by their very nature and essence, obliged to unite their common efforts for the perfection of their own being and that of their condition. The surest method of succeeding in this pursuit is, that each individual should exert his efforts first for himself and then for others. Hence it follows, that, whatever we owe to ourselves, we likewise owe to others, so far as they stand in need of assistance, and we can grant it to them without being wanting to ourselves. Since, then, one nation, in its way, owes to another nation every duty that one man owes to another man, we may confidently lay down this general principle: — one state owes to another state whatever it owes to itself, so far as that other stands in real need of its assistance, and the former can grant it without neglecting the duties it owes to itself. Such is the eternal and immutable law of nature. Those who might be alarmed at this doctrine, as totally subversive of the maxims of sound policy, will be relieved from their apprehensions by the two following considerations: —

1. Social bodies or sovereign states are much more capable of supplying all their wants than individual men are; and mutual assistance is not so necessary among them, nor so frequently required. Now, in those particulars which a nation can itself perform, no succour is due to it from others.

2. The duties of a nation towards itself, and chiefly the care of its own safety, require much more circumspection and reserve than need be observed by an individual in giving assistance to others. This remark we shall soon illustrate.

§ 4. Duties of a nation for the preservation of others.

Of all the duties of a nation towards itself, the chief object is its preservation and perfection, together with that of its state. The detail given of them in the first book of this work may serve to point out the several objects in relation to which a state may and should assist another state. Every nation ought, on occasion, to labour for the preservation of others, and for securing them from ruin and destruction, as far as it can do this without exposing itself too much. Thus, when a neighbouring nation is unjustly attacked by a powerful enemy who threatens to oppress it, if you can defend it, without exposing yourself to great danger, unquestionably it is your duty to do so. Let it not be said, in objection to this, that a sovereign is not to expose the lives of his soldiers for the safety of a foreign nation with which he has not contracted a defensive alliance. It may be his own case to stand in need of assistance; and, consequently, he is acting for the safety of his own nation in giving energy to the spirit and disposition to afford mutual aid. Accordingly, policy here coincides with and enforces obligation and duty. It is the interest of princes to stop the progress of an ambitious monarch, who aims at aggrandizing himself by subjugating his neighbours. A powerful league was formed in favour of the United Provinces, when threatened with the yoke of Louis XIV.3 When the Turks laid siege to Vienna, the brave Sobieski, king of Poland, saved the house of Austria.4 and possibly all Germany, and his own kingdom.

§ 5. It ought to assist a nation afflicted with famine or any other calamities.

For the same reason, if a nation is afflicted with famine, all those who have provisions to spare ought to relieve her distress, without, however, exposing themselves to want.(89) But, if that nation is able to pay for the provisions thus furnished, it is perfectly lawful to sell them to her at a reasonable rate; for they are not bound to furnish her with what she is herself capable of procuring; and, consequently, there is no obligation of gratuitously bestowing on her such things as she is able to purchase. To give assistance in such extreme necessity is so essentially conformable to humanity, that the duty is seldom neglected by any nation that has received the slightest polish of civilization. The great Henry the Fourth could not forbear to comply with it in favour of obstinate rebels who were bent on his destruction.5

Whatever be the calamity with which a nation is afflicted, the like assistance is due to it. We have seen little states in Switzerland order public collections to be made in behalf of towns or villages of the neighbouring countries, which had been ruined by fire, and remit them liberal succours; the difference of religion proving no bar to the performance of so humane a deed. The calamities of Portugal have given England an opportunity of fulfilling the duties of humanity with that noble generosity which characterizes a great nation. On the first intelligence of the disastrous fate of Lisbon,6 the parliament voted a hundred thousand pounds sterling for the relief of an unfortunate people; the king also added considerable sums: ships, laden with provisions and all kinds of succours, were sent away with the utmost despatch; and their arrival convinced the Portuguese that an opposition in belief and worship does not restrain the beneficence of those who understand the claims of humanity. On the same occasion, likewise, the king of Spain signally displayed his tenderness for a near ally, and exerted, in a conspicuous manner, his humanity and generosity.

§ 6. It ought to contribute to the perfection of other states.

A nation must not simply confine itself to the preservation of other states; it should likewise, according to its power and their want of its assistance, contribute to their perfection. We have already shown (Prelim. § 13) that natural society imposes on it this general obligation. We are now come to the proper place for treating of the obligation somewhat more in detail. A state is more or less perfect, as it is more or less adapted to attain the end of civil society, which consists in procuring for its members every thing of which they stand in need, for the necessities, the conveniences, and enjoyments of life, and for their happiness in general, — in providing for the peaceable enjoyment of property, and the safe and easy administration of justice, — and, finally, in defending itself against all foreign violence (Book I. § 15). Every nation therefore, should occasionally, and according to its power, contribute, not only to put another nation in possession of these advantages, but likewise to render it capable of procuring them itself. Accordingly, a learned nation, if applied to for masters and teachers in the sciences, by another nation desirous of shaking off it native barbarism, ought not to refuse such a request. A nation, whose happiness it is to live under wise laws, should on occasion, make it a point of duty to communicate them. Thus, when the wise and virtuous Romans sent ambassadors to Greece to collect good laws, the Greeks were far from rejecting so reasonable and so laudable a request. (90)

§ 7. But not by force.

But, though a nation be obliged to promote, as far as lies in its power, the perfection of others, it is not entitled forcibly to obtrude these good offices on them. Such an attempt would be a violation of their natural liberty. In order to compel any one to receive a kindness, we must have an authority over him; but nations are absolutely free and independent (Prelim. § 4). Those ambitious Europeans who atlacked the American nations, and subjected them to their greedy dominion, in order, as they pretended, to civilize them, and cause them to be instructed in the true religion, — those usurpers, I say, grounded themselves on a pretext equally unjust and ridiculous. It is strange to hear the learned and judicious Grotius assert that a sovereign may justly take up arms to chastise nations which are guilty of enormous transgressions of the law of nature, which treat their parents with inhumanity like the Sogdians, which eat human flesh as the ancient Gauls, &c.7(91) What led him into this error, was, his attributing to every independent man, and of course to every sovereign, an odd kind of right to punish faults which involve an enormous violation of the laws of nature, though they do not affect either his rights or his safety. But we have shown (Book I. § 169) that men derive the right of punishment solely from their right to provide for their own safety; and consequently they cannot claim it except against those by whom they have been injured. Could it escape Grotius, that, notwithstanding all the precautions added by him in the following paragraphs, his opinion opens a door to all the ravages of enthusiasm and fanaticism, and furnishes ambition with numberless pretexts? Mohammed and his successors have desolated and subdued Asia, to avenge the indignity done to the unity of the Godhead; all whom they termed associators or idolaters fell victims to their devout fury.

§ 8. The right to require the offices of humanity.

Since nations ought to perform these duties or offices of humanity towards each other, according as one stands in need, and the other can reasonably comply with them, — every nation being free, independent, and sole arbitress of her own actions, it belongs to each to consider whether her situation warrants her in asking or granting any thing on this head. Thus 1. Every nation has a perfect right to ask of another that assistance and those kind offices which she conceives herself to stand in need of. To prevent her, would be doing her an injury. If she makes the application without necessity, she is guilty of a breach of duty; but, in this respect, she is wholly independent of the judgment of others. A nation has a right to ask for these kind offices, but not to demand them.

§ 9. The right of judging whether they are to be granted.

For, 2. These offices being due only in necessity, and by a nation which can comply with them without being wanting to itself; the nation that is applied to has, on the other hand, a right of judging whether the case really demands them, and whether circumstances will allow her to grant them consistently with that regard which she ought to pay to her own safety and interests: for instance, a nation is in want of corn, and applies to another nation to sell her a quantity of it: — in this case it rests with the latter party to judge whether, by a compliance with the request, they will not expose themselves to the danger of a scarcity: and, if they refuse to comply, their determination is to be patienty acquiesced in. We have very lately seen a prudent performance of this duty on the part of Russia: she generously assisted Sweden when threatened with a famine, but refused to other powers the liberty of purchasing corn in Livonia, from the circumstance of standing herself in need of it, and, no doubt, from weighty political motives likewise.

§ 10. A nation is not to compel another to perform these.

Thus, the right which a nation has to the offices of humanity is but an imperfect one: she cannot compel another nation to the performance of them. The nation that unreasonably refuses them offends against equity, which consists in acting conformably to the imperfect right of another: but thereby no injury is done; injury or injustice being a trespass against the perfect right of another.

§ 11. Mutual love of nations.

It is impossible that nations should mutually discharge all these several duties if they do not love each other. This is the pure source from which the offices of humanity should proceed; they will retain the character and perfection of it. Then nations will be seen sincerely and cheerfully to help each other, earnestly to promote their common welfare, and cultivate peace, without jealousy or distrust.

§ 12. Each nation ought to cultivate the friendship of others.

A real friendship will be seen to reign among them; and this happy state consists in a mutual affection, Every nation is obliged to cultivate the friendship of other nations, and carefully to avoid whatever might kindle their enmity against her. Wise and prudent nations often pursue this line of conduct from views of direct and present interest: a more noble, more general, and less direct interest, is too rarely the motive of politicians. If it be incontestable that men must love each other in order to answer the views of nature and discharge the duties which she prescribes them, as well as for their own private advantage, — can it be doubted that nations are under the like reciprocal obligation? Is it in the power of men, on dividing themselves into different political bodies, to break the ties of that universal society which nature has established amongst them?

§ 13. To perfect itself with a view to the advantage of others, and set them good examples.

If a man ought to qualify himself for becoming useful toother men, — and a citizen, for rendering useful services to his country and fellow citizens, a nation likewise, in perfecting herself, ought to have in view the acquisition of a greater degree of ability to promote the perfection and happiness of other nations; she should be careful to set them good examples, and avoid setting them a pattern of any thing evil. Imitation is natural to mankind: the virtues of a celebrated nation are sometimes imitated, and much more frequently its vices and defects.

§ 14. To take care of their glory.

Glory being a possession of great importance to a nation, as we have shown in a particular chapter expressly devoted to the subject,8 — the duty of a nation extends even to the care of the glory of other nations. In the first place, she should, on occasion, contribute to enable them to merit true glory: secondly, she should do them in this respect all the justice due to them, and use all proper endeavours that such justice be universally done them: finally, instead of irritating, she should kindly extenuate the bad effect which some slight blemishes may produce.

§ 15. Difference of religion.

From the manner in which we have established the obligation of performing the offices of humanity, it plainly appears to be solely founded on the nature of man. Wherefore, no nation can refuse them to another, under pretence of its professing a different religion; to be entitled to them, it is sufficient that the claimant is our fellow-creature, A conformity of belief and worship may become a new tie of friendship between nations: but no difference in these respects can warrant us in laying aside the character of men, or the sentiments annexed to it. As we have already related (§ 5) some instances well worthy of imitation, let us here do justice to the pontiff who at present fills the see of Rome, and has recently given a very remarkable example, and which cannot be loo highly commended. Information being given to that prince, that several Dutch ships remained at Civita Vecchia, not daring to put to sea for fear of the Algerine corsairs, he immediately issued orders that the frigates of the ecclesiastical state should convoy those ships out of danger; and his nuncio at Brussels received instructions to signify to the ministers of the states-general, that his holiness made it a rule to protect commerce and perform the duties of humanity, without regarding any difference of religion. Such exalted sentiments cannot fail of raising a veneration for Benedict XIV. even amongst Protestants.(92)

§ 16. Rule and measure of the offices of humanity.

How happy would mankind be, were these amiable precepts of nature everywhere observed! Nations would communicate to each other their products and their knowledge; a profound peace would prevail all over the earth, and enrich it with its invaluable fruits; industry, the sciences and the arts would be employed in promoting our happiness, no less than in relieving our wants; violent methods of deciding contests would be no more heard of; all differences would be terminated by moderation, justice, and equity; the world would have the appearance of a large republic; men would live everywhere like brothers, and each individual be a citizen of the universe. That this idea should be but a delightful dream! yet it flows from the nature and essence of man.9 Put disorderly passions, and private and mistaken interest, will for ever prevent its being realized. Let us then, consider what limitations the present state of men, and the ordinary maxims and conduct of nations, may render necessary in the practice of these precepts of nature, which are in themselves so noble and excellent.

The law of nature cannot condemn the good to become the dupes and prey of the wicked, and the victims of their injustice and ingratitude. Melancholy experience shows that most nations aim only to strengthen and enrich themselves at the expense of others, — to domineer over them, and even if an opportunity offers, to oppress and bring them under the yoke. Prudence does not allow us to strengthen an enemy,(93) or one in whom we discover a desire of plundering and oppressing us: and the care of our own safety forbids it. We have seen (§ 3, &c.) that a nation does not owe her assistance and the offices of humanity to other nations, except so far as the grant of them is reconcilable with her duties to herself. Hence, it evidently follows, that, though the universal love of mankind obliges us to grant at all times, and to all, even to our enemies, those offices which can only tend to render them more moderate and virtuous, because no inconvenience is to be apprehended from granting them, — we are not obliged to give them such succours as probably may become destructive to ourselves. Thus, 1. The exceeding importance of trade, not only to the wants and conveniences of life, but likewise to the strength of a state, and furnishing it with the means of defending itself against its enemies, — and the insatiable avidity of those nations which seek wholly and exclusively to engross it, — thus, I say, these circumstances authorize a nation possessed of a branch of trade, or the secret of some important manufacture or fabric, to reserve to herself those sources of wealth, and, instead of communicating them to foreign nations, to take measure against it. But, where the necessaries or conveniences of life are in question, the nation ought to sell them to others at a reasonable price, and not convert her monopoly into a system of odious extortion. To commerce England chiefly owes her greatness, her power, and her safety: who, then, will presume to blame her for endeavouring, by every fair and just method, to retain the several branches of it in her own hand?

2. As to things directly and more particularly useful for war, a nation is under no obligation to sell them to others of whom it has the smallest suspicion; and prudence even declares against it. Thus, by the Roman laws, people were very justly prohibited to instruct the barbarous nations in building galleys. Thus, in England, laws have been enacted to prevent the best method of ship-building from being carried out of the kingdom.

This caution is to be carried farther, with respect to nations more justly suspected. Thus, when the Turks were successfully pursuing their victorious career, and rapidly advancing to the zenith of power, all Christian nations ought, independent of every bigoted consideration, to have considered them as enemies; even the most distant of those nations, though not engaged in any contest with them, would have been justifiable in breaking off all commerce with a people who made it their profession to subdue by force of arms all who would not acknowledge the authority of their prophet.

§ 17. Particular limitation with regard to the prince.

Let us further observe, with regard to the prince in particular, that he ought not, in affairs of this nature, to obey without reserve all the suggestions of a noble and generous heart impelling him to sacrifice his own interests to the advantage of others, or to motives of generosity; because it is not his private interest that is in question, but that of the state — that of the nation who has committed herself to his care. Cicero says that a great and elevated soul despises pleasures, wealth, life itself, and makes no account of them, when the common utility is at stake.10 He is right, and such sentiments are to be admired in a private person; but generosity is not to be exerted at the expense of others. The head or conductor of a nation ought not to practise that virtue in public affairs without great circumspection, nor to a greater extent than will redound to the glory and real advantage of the state. As to the common good of human society, he ought to pay the same attention to it as the nation he represents would be obliged to pay were the government of her affairs in her own hand.

§ 18. No nation ought to injure others.

But, though the duties of a nation towards herself set bounds to the obligation of performing the offices of humanity, they cannot in the least affect the prohibition of doing any harm to others, of causing them any prejudice, — in a word, of injuring them 11.... If every man is, by his very nature, obliged to assist in promoting the perfection of others, much more cogent are the reasons which forbid him to increase their imperfection, and that of their condition. The same duties are incumbent on nations (Prelim. §§ 5, 6). No nation, therefore, ought to commit any actions tending to impair the perfection of other nations, and that of their condition, or to impede their progress, — in other words, to injure them.(94) And, since the perfection of a nation consists in her aptitude to attain the end of civil society — and the perfection of her condition, in not wanting any of the things necessary to that end (Book I. § 14) — no one nation ought to hinder another from attaining the end of civil society, or to render her incapable of attaining it. This general principle forbids nations to practise any evil manœuvres tending to create disturbance in another state, to foment discord, to corrupt its citizens, to alienate its allies, to raise enemies against it, to tarnish its glory, and to deprive it of its natural advantages.(95)

However, it will be easily conceived that negligence in fulfilling the common duties of humanity, and even the refusal of these duties or offices, is not an injury. To neglect or refuse contributing to the perfection of a nation, is not impairing that perfection.

It must be further observed, that, when we are making use of our right, when we are doing what we owe to ourselves or to others, if, from this action of ours, any prejudice results to the perfection of another, — any detriment to his exterior condition, — we are not guilty of an injury we are doing what is lawful, or even what we ought to do. The damage which accrues to the other is no part of our intention: it is merely an accident, the imputability of which must be determined by the particular circumstances. For instance, in case of a lawful defence, the harm we do to the aggressor is not the object we aim at; — we act only with a view to our own safety; we make use of our right; and the aggressor alone is chargeable with the mischief which he brings on himself.

§ 19. Offences.

Nothing is more opposite to the duties of humanity, nor more contrary to that society which should be cultivated by nations, than offences, or actions which give a just displeasure to others: every nation therefore should carefully avoid giving any other nation real offence: I say real; for, should others take offence at our behaviour when we are only using our rights or fulfilling our duties, the fault lies with them, not with us. Offences excite such asperity and rancour between nations that we should avoid giving any room even for ill-grounded piques, when it can be done without any inconveniency, or failure in our duty. It is said that certain medals and dull jests irritated Louis XIV. against the United Provinces to such a degree as to induce him, in 1672, to undertake the destruction of that republic.(96)

§ 20. Bad customs of the ancients.

The maxims laid down in this chapter, — those sacred precepts of nature, — were for a long time unknown to nations. The ancients had no notion of any duty they owed to nations with whom they were not united by treaties of friendship.12 The Jews especially placed a great part of their zeal in hating all nations; and, as a natural consequence, they were detested and despised by them in turn. At length the voice of nature came to be heard among civilized nations; they perceived that all men are brethren.13 When will the happy time come that they shall behave as such?

PS: As for the destruction of societies, Ibn Khaldun has a very interesting theory about it: when a society becomes a great civilization (and, presumably, the dominant culture in its region), its high point is followed by a period of decay. This means that the next cohesive group that conquers the diminished civilization is, by comparison, a group of barbarians. Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, however, they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of barbarians, who will repeat the process. Some contemporary readers of Khaldun have read this as an early business cycle theory, though set in the historical circumstances of the mature Islamic empire.
Ibn Khaldun's outlines an early (possibly even the earliest) example of political economy. He describes the economy as being composed of value-adding processes; that is, labour and skill is added to techniques and crafts and the product is sold at a higher value. He also made the distinction between "profit" and "sustenance", in modern political economy terms, surplus and that required for the reproduction of classes respectively. He also calls for the creation of a science to explain society and goes on to outline these ideas in his major work the Muqaddimah.

PPS: In the ancient and medieval times the ruling classes treated the rest of society/the commoners as cattle. They were tyranical olympians, and a few occasional revolutionaries that sprung up with new ideas, like Prometheus, were punished most severely and made an example of. The revolution which brought the most benefits to the working classes was the industrial revolution, which brought with it high productivity, efficiency, economic growth and deflation. Today we're indoctrinated to believe that deflation is bad, all so that the government and private financieers can extort the citizens through inflation. Technological development brings with it a lowering of living standards and overall CPI, however the monetary profits of the markets keep this from happening. They don't want to make decent profits by offering fair/objective prices, they want to jack those prices up, to milk the public, and they do this by behaviorist methods of advertising and marketing. Unsound government regulations don't help either, that's why you'll get anomalies like having to pay much more for the same service or product in a more developed country, than you would pay for the same things in a lesser developed country. It's all bullshit, the establishment's bullshit. The only way for optimal development in a society is for both the pyramid's top and base to strive for the same goals with the same means, while keeping the hierarchic chain between the top and bottom as short as possible. We don't want slaves on the bottom and demigods on the top, now do we?


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
10.09.2012 11:14
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MarcusAquila
Member
*


Posts: 125
Words count: 18,923
Group: Basic
Joined: Aug2012
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 50
Glory Points: 25
Medals: 2

Post: #8
RE: The Political Philosophies

Quote:
Ok. But these rules are quite simplified. "Murder is illegal" doesn't work, if a group has to defend itself with military means.


The difference between murder and war is that murder is cold-blooded, war is in self-defense. It's important to be able to differentiate terms.


The hand of the aggressor is stayed by strength and strength alone.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower

I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison
10.09.2012 15:54
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #9
RE: The Political Philosophies

MarcusAquila Wrote:

Quote:
Ok. But these rules are quite simplified. "Murder is illegal" doesn't work, if a group has to defend itself with military means.


The difference between murder and war is that murder is cold-blooded, war is in self-defense. It's important to be able to differentiate terms.

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” ~Ernest Hemingway


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
10.09.2012 17:59
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #10
RE: The Political Philosophies

MarcusAquila Wrote:

Quote:
Ok. But these rules are quite simplified. "Murder is illegal" doesn't work, if a group has to defend itself with military means.


The difference between murder and war is that murder is cold-blooded, war is in self-defense. It's important to be able to differentiate terms.

"I agree completely with this gentlemant here. I only defended myself from the Allies and then the Soviets -- I actually wanted to hurt no one! Those danged Poles started it all. They demanded East Prussia so they could have more territory. HECK if I was going to give it to them. I had to defend my people." -- Hitler.

11.09.2012 03:32
Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Is political correctness murderous? Malone 10 2,678 29.12.2020 20:08
Last Post: lorrielsims
  Political Correctness Malone 1 1,293 20.05.2020 23:07
Last Post: Malone
  Political test Malone 69 18,082 24.08.2016 09:54
Last Post: Spacebob
  Stephen Fry on Political Correctness, Regressive Left, and Clear Thinking Helsworth 5 1,917 15.04.2016 17:55
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Ben Carson's political standings (I am pulling all of these from his books) yangusbeef 14 2,823 15.11.2015 02:43
Last Post: Quew
  Papal Political Problems Edvard Kardelj 5 1,427 15.10.2015 23:42
Last Post: debauchery
Cool Political Test - other languages Malone 0 1,600 21.05.2013 08:51
Last Post: Malone
  The History of the Devil --about religious and political crimes and bullshit-- Helsworth 0 1,584 22.11.2012 16:29
Last Post: Helsworth
  Political Profile thread Zultra 19 6,631 18.04.2012 19:36
Last Post: Lord Alexander
  Your Political Views beste 29 5,962 23.12.2011 07:54
Last Post: Prof de la Paz

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: