House of Eratosthenes

How did Goverment come to be?

Not this or that particular government, like America or Mexico or the Babylonian Empire. I mean the whole shebang, capital-G Government. Great thinkers and college freshmen alike have pondered this over bong hits since humanity first came down from the trees, and their answers have always fallen into one of two groups:

Group A argues that it’s basically a contract. A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual.

Group B argues that government comes from somewhere Out There. Maybe it’s God, maybe it’s Historical Necessity, maybe it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but whatever it is, it imposed government on us. The key player here is Something Out There, whatever it may turn out to be.

With me so far? Now, apply them to basic history. Here’s where it gets tricky…

There follows a whole lot of well-structured and well-grounded observations of what all has gone down, and how it did, viewed through this lens of A and B. RTWT. Then he closes with:

Column A, Column B. We need catchier names than that — I look forward to your suggestions — but it’s really that easy.

I believe, or am at least tinkering with the possibility that, he’s discovering Architects and Medicators, the former of whom are going to be in Column A because there’s no place else for them to be. If the mystery-black-box breaks and nobody knows how it works, in their world you take it apart and figure that out. Watches have to have gears, the computer has to have a processor. Composites have atomics. These guys aren’t happy until the composites have been broken down, especially if the composite is busted; if there is all this importance placed on a “somewhere out there” then the first thing they’ll do is saddle up and go find out what that is.

That’s really been the distinction, at least what I had in mind, since I started writing about them. Medicators medicate. They may have responsibilities, and these responsibilities may load them up with stress that they need to bleed out or off-load somewhere; they’ll do that by means of something repetitive and non-edifying. Something like Barack Obama’s 15 games of Spades — something that does not intentionally change the state of any object, as furniture-building or quilt-making would, and something that does not bring new information to its instigator. They’re not big on the “go find out what it is” thing, so when they explain how a certain thing works their explanations tend to rely a great deal on these “somethings” and “somewheres.”

Which is not to say, I’ve noticed, that they are willing to let go of control and are accepting of fate. Heavens no. This is Robespierre in a nutshell, along with quite a few lefties who’ve been in the public eye lately. They’ve had ample opportunity to explain themselves and their explanations all follow the same theme: Something something something, somewhere somewhere somewhere, The American People Have Spoken, and so — it’s all going to happen My Way, and everybody agrees that’s the right way to go and if you don’t agree then you’re a hater or a something-IST.

And don’t dare ask that Thing That Shall Not Be Asked: How do we know this will go any better than the last time you guys said that? Or: What, specifically, have you changed in your plan to make sure it doesn’t suck as much as it did last time? Those questions, too, make you a hater or a something-IST. Just like the guys waiting in line to be guillotined, back in the day.

Thanks for the link!

And you’re right — Architects and Medicators is largely what I’m talking about (and I would have said so, had I realized it). The thing I’d like to emphasize in the Column A/B distinction, though, is agency. Column B is entirely passive-voice. Instead of “Medicators medicate,” the people in Column B see themselves as the tools of some large cosmic force. Robespierre wasn’t sending you to the guillotine because he wanted you dead, remember; he was just obeying the General Will, the same way Lenin was merely an agent of Historical Necessity when he ordered you dragged out and shot.

Even when they’re being active, in other words — even when they’re making “progress” — they’re doing it by piggybacking on some great, irresistible historical force from Somewhere Out There. Which does tend to lead to this weird kind of hyperactive quietism, for lack of a better phrase — everything’s hope’n’change’n’change’n’hope, but if it doesn’t work, eh, we don’t wanna know, because it’s really all Historical Inevitability anyway.
- Severian | 09/19/2014 @ 05:04
Ayn Rand used to complain about this. Perhaps the distinction we’re seeking has to do with how people react to contradictions. She wrote into her character’s script, a line that made it into the Part I movie, “Contradictions cannot exist in nature, if you think you’ve found one check your premises. You’ll find out something there is wrong.”

The other side deals with contradictions by subtracting. Spock defined this: “The good of the money outweighs the good of the few, or the one.” That may make good sense in certain situations. The key point here is that after you have held the pure-democracy vote, and the good of the majority has triumphed over the good of the minority — the contradiction has ceased to exist. Much of Rand’s objection, if I understand it right, is that this is a falsehood, so that the democratic process is being used to manufacture a phony-snowglobe reality of sorts.

Obama is an interesting phenomenon to study here. He’s not really an aberration, since every leftist dictator back to the Pharoahs has had this “When He does it, that means it is not illegal” thing going on. So when He goes to the Oval Office or to the golf course to endlessly mull over some issue for months at a time and arrive at The Perfect Answer, does He remain the ultimate source of all this unquestionable wisdom? Or is He communing with some cosmic force, aligning the bearings in His moral compass? If it’s the latter, then His fans will never outwardly say so; bloggers like me might stop capitalizing the H. But, according to you, that does seem to be a central idea in the doctrine, that the sovereign is sovereign because that position is merely one of vicar, standing in for something entirely different that is much bigger.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2014 @ 05:41
that the sovereign is sovereign because that position is merely one of vicar, standing in for something entirely different that is much bigger.

In other words, does Obama believe in the divine right of kings?

Oh fu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-uh-ck yes.

This is why leftism is so full of extremely unlikely messiahs. Hillary Clinton, for instance, is the kind of woman that can clear a room in under five minutes. If she were “Joan Smith,” of 744 Evergreen Terrace, Anytown USA, she’d be the most loathed person in her neighborhood, the kind of shrew who is ruins PTA meetings and uses the homeowner’s association as her own personal Gestapo. But since she’s Hillary!, she’s not a human politician, she’s the avatar of Historical Necessity. That’s why they’re so Ready for Hillary. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

And honestly, I think that’s why we Column A people / Architects have such a hard time understanding the psychology of someone like Barack Obama. I think he really does feel he’s carrying the torch for “the proletariat” (and, of course, for “blackness”). We throw the word “avatar” around casually (I just did it, above), but… what if you really thought you were the incarnation of some large historical force? Not just that you have “the mandate” — i.e. 50.1% of the population preferred you over the other guy — but that your very presence in the top slot means that The People are ascendant, and Capitalism is on the run?

I honestly don’t understand Ayn Rand’s objection here. The “contradiction” is resolved by the contractual nature of government. The good of the minority might lose a vote to the good of the majority, but the majority can’t use their numerical superiority to violate the rights of the minority. (At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work). The left doesn’t believe in this — anytime they lose on an issue, it’s just an epicycle in the flow of Progress — but I’d think Rand would. But then again, I rather suspect Ayn Rand was more of a Column B person at heart. From what little I’ve read of her work, she seems to think capital-R Reason guides the universe. Hegel thought that, too, and look where that got us. (But as I say, I’m really talking out my ass on this one).
- Severian | 09/19/2014 @ 06:15
Sev: “…the people in Column B see themselves as the tools of some large cosmic force. Robespierre wasn’t sending you to the guillotine because he wanted you dead, remember; he was just obeying the General Will, the same way Lenin was merely an agent of Historical Necessity when he ordered you dragged out and shot. ”

The ultimate in passive aggression. The language, the behavior, the attitudes… all dovetail. Maybe that’s why the many evils on display are so hard to fight – the evildoers are convinced that they aren’t to blame. (But oh how they want the credit!) They are just in the service of larger forces (and that may be true in a way they won’t like). They don’t believe in the Devil, only in what he makes them do.

And it’s not just the Robespierres and Lenins to worry about. I’m thinking of George Bernard Shaw and the “elan vital,” and the pop-culturizing of casual materialism. These evils are sown in culture before they’re reaped elsewhere.

You really hit triple-20 with this post, Sev.
- nightfly | 09/19/2014 @ 06:58
Thanks!

They don’t believe in the Devil, only in what he makes them do.

That’s the heart of it. It really does boil down to the Divine Right of Kings. What I do is right, because I do it. If God disagreed, He wouldn’t have made me king. Substitute History, the General Will, etc. to taste.

As I said in the original Rotten Chestnuts post, this means that by definition people have no inalienable rights. One might argue — as theologians did in fact argue — that even the king can’t break God’s commandments at will, and that the king has certain duties to his subjects as God’s vicar. But when you replace God with Dialectical Materialism, or the Laws of History, or the General Will, or what have you, even that minor restraint is lifted.

Capital-H History doesn’t care about your life, any more than Progress cares about your property. These forces do what they do, and if you don’t like it, too bad. You may as well be arguing with gravity.

That’s why the left is so addicted to those passive voice constructions. It’s why they drop their pronouns when you catch them out. And it’s why they’re so addicted to polysyllabic gobbledygook — “I should be able to get hammered and sleep around consequence-free” is obviously solipsistic nonsense, but “the hegemony of cisnormative patriarchal power structures” could mean anything.
- Severian | 09/19/2014 @ 07:21
So! I was watching the movie Billy Budd the other day.
Justice vs. The Law
Crimes against The King/decorum vs. (ie)jury of ones peers.
A bit like that whole “sub story” going on in Les Miserables, or projections of Racist/Homophobe/Misogynist/obstructionist toward critics of The One, and “his” “agency” appointees.
- CaptDMO | 09/19/2014 @ 09:11
You guys made me start a blog post on this one because I didn’t want to take up too much space in your comments section.

Thanks for the material.

http://www.thecompostfiles.blogspot.com The post will be up by 09/20

Column A’s are “Indies” and Column B’s are TOTBALs.
- Moshe Ben-David | 09/19/2014 @ 12:41
I’m looking forward to it!
- Severian | 09/19/2014 @ 15:28
Severian: How did Goverment come to be?

Tribes were an early form of government, and they arose from personal interactions in small communities. A monopoly of force arose during the development of civilization, for defense, as well as for public works. As the power of the individual rose with the advent of gunpowder, this evolved into the notion of a social contract.

Severian: Group A argues that it’s basically a contract. A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual.

Not precisely. Many associations are made at the tribal level, so that the tribe is the negotiating party. Another example, the original U.S. states agreeing to the 1789 constitution.
- Zachriel | 09/20/2014 @ 07:07
•Dislike any changes in routines.
•Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age.
• Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
•Be preoccupied with only one or few interests
•Have heightened sensitivity and become overstimulated by loud noises, lights, or strong tastes or textures.

Five of eleven. Definitely clinical. Seek therapy.
- Severian | 09/20/2014 @ 09:03

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Column A, Column BFriday, September 19th, 2014

Column A, Column B
Friday, September 19th, 2014