The Evil That Is Democratic Thought
December 5, 2011
The mantra that democratic rule exists in the realm of governmental affairs has proven false. The fact that deficit spending is commonplace and acceptable to their populace links the social democracies in a feudal structure that most are unwilling to acknowledge. The practice of debt created bank money underlies every social policy and expenditure. The notion that paying for public projects, based upon popular support and taxes, is extinct. Destroying domestic currencies and obligating future generations to the debt slavery of past failed projects, has replaced the work ethic. Democracies pledge subsidies without labor and security absent of personal freedom.
Is this the promise for a society based upon individual dignity, or is this the formula for subsistence survival of servile serfs?
One of the consistent symptoms of self-delusion in the postmodern global society is the denial that evil is not real. The very term evil offends sophisticates that revel in God is Dead mindset. Friedrich Nietzsche’s proposition that the idea of God is dead now rules much of the planet. The end result is that eternal standards of ethics and morality are rejected and situational whims that foster unsavory appetites are adopted. Under the inevitable void in ethical principles, the discipline of epistemology and the search for truth becomes impossible. Knowledge is never relative; it is everlasting and founded upon permanent reality. Contrary to the Transhumanist vision for mankind, human nature is undeviating in its common and shared traits and foibles. The most pronounced shortcoming in all of us is the tendency to accept or even commit evil, in the normal course of our behavior.The philosophy of history has long struggled with ethics in politics. Yet, the champions of the modern state cling to the suspect claim that legitimacy of a political regime stems from the public authority of citizens reflected by their democratic will of consent. The essential question posed, that few will address, rests upon the ultimate nature of any political structure. Can a democracy be moral, when selfish sycophants shout and pose as the voice of the people?
Tyler S. Moselle in a paper, Natural Evil in Politics, concludes.A Theory of Natural Evil in Politics
“We have seen various moderns approach the question of natural evil in politics with direct reference to eternal essence. The general modern trend refers to attempts to turn back to eternal essence as naturally evil due to inadequacies in human reason, conceptions of justice, or physical necessity (self-interest and survival). Yet, none of the moderns destroy a natural link to justice or evil in politics – they merely shift the grounds of the debate. Conceptions of radical freedom with no essence preceding existence still affirm notions of responsibility and ethics.
The liberal conception of injustice often attempts to defend itself with teleological justifications (via Kant and Hegel) that can be linked to the classical conception of the eternal ideas. Machiavelli and Nietzsche turn against eternal essence and being in unique ways in an effort to affirm the physical over the intangible. Most importantly, we have seen that Hume’s attack on essence preceding existence is not so devastating. We addressed an alternative through Noam Chomsky’s work synthesizing a conception of natural evil in politics through anarchism and activism. We offered a sustained argument for progress which turns against the conservative arguments of eternal being and unchanging essence from the classical conception. Now it is time to sketch a brief theory of natural evil in politics.
Natural evil in politics is the following: the extreme periphery against the middle ground. Plato establishes the difficulty and problems in nature when seeking to reconcile eternal being with becoming. Aristotle puts forth a practical vision of the political regime based on moderation.
Confucius establishes a natural right teaching that focuses on the middle way. The moderns push for the physical over the metaphysical and make an argument for harmonizing the extremes or at least reveal that both the extreme periphery and the stable middle are the solid core. Hume makes the eternal essence of classical metaphysics applicable but does not destroy it.
Chomsky provides an applicable model of testing the theory of natural evil against reality while retaining conceptions of natural justice and eternal ideas as a basic standard. The arguments for historical progress reveal compromises that underscore the harmony of the radical few who push for progress in the name of the eternal essence of ideas while being stabilized by the unradical many and the becoming of reality. This is not determinism but the basic realization that the extreme periphery and the solid core fuse into a symbiotic whole as prefaced in the introduction”.
Mr. Moselle uses the term progress as a theme if not a goal. Can such an objective be applied to a nanotechnology state that seeks to remake human nature into a transhumanist cyborg robot? There is no escape from asking and seeking an answer to the philosophical inquiry of the evil nature in each of us. When maniacal scientists dream of their benign Frankenstein creatures free of original sin, they verify that human progress is attainable only in their own demented minds.
Verbalizing the concept of original sin with its implied cosmological implications must seem like heresy to those who reject that evil exists. Yet, you do not have to advocate the tyrannical disposition of Plato’s Philosopher King to recognize that the record of historic achievements are few, when stacked up against the pattern of barbaric pillage, that extends from the use of the sword to the speculation in derivatives, swaps and naked shorts.
Western Civilization has produced the greatest degree of individual human freedom because it is founded upon universal principles and the sanctity of all life. The exploration of intellectual thought during the Enlightenment pressed the boundaries of traditional political systems. With the emergence of a tradesman and guild economy, the principles of democratic participation became a trend. The focal levers of power never transferred to the ordinary layman, but with the rise of literacy, the input of former serfs became the sentiment of the mass public.
As with any rise in understanding and knowledge, a little insight does not make a mastermind. However, the average appreciation of historic lessons and immutable values, of the 18th and 19th century, far outpaced the social relativism of the last few generations of whiz kids. Those who argue that the educational achievement of government schools is a proud record for human development are proof positive of their lack of perspective and wisdom.
The government dependency clones that matriculate through the socialized indoctrination of society are a very dangerous wounded animal that believe they have an equal entitlement on democratic thought. This assessment does not exclude their natural rights or civil protections under an equal application of the law. Nonetheless, the idea that the popular will of addictive subsidy government recipients, trumps the voice and influence of independent and self-employed wealth creators is absurd. Yet, logic and common sense has never been an important element within the political process.
When will people address the metaphysical macrocosm of political power? Machiavelli and Nietzsche seem to be the operative sages for the insane world that is imploding more each day. The internationalist interdependency of foreign policy and corporatist commerce benefits from the demise of God, because the beneficiaries are the same elites that have ruled the planet for the ages. The democratic movements that seek to purge the cabals, diminish the economic cartels and break up the banksters institutions understand the evil character of this concentration of power. However, many misguided activists use sophistry when directing their outrage into attempts to be part of a corrupt body politic.
The 99% vs. the 1% misses the mark because the philosophy that underpins the redistribution of the riches cry violates the principles of actual wealth creation. Mob rule is transient; oligarchy governance is the norm, while representative government is rare. The reason that government fails to represent the democratic will of the people is that it is inherently an evil institution. Democratic thought fails because it so many people believe that government is tamable and is able to achieve good outcomes.
As long as the human race populates the planet, clashes with competing factions and conflicts will be the net result. Utopian dreams always grind down to practical circumstance, because our mutual nature is usually the only factor that we all share. Universal voting to achieve political consciousness might be achievable in local jurisdictions, but is ridiculous when implemented on national levels.
Ending ineffective and inept spending financed by debt is the proper conclusion of rational thought. Woefully, we live in a democratic ethos of idiots. The existential advocacy that existence precedes essence may apply to the human context of possibilities and achievements, but the Hume viewpoint that essence precedes existence pertains to governments. While being human institutions, the state and more to the point, the iniquitous banking syndicates are systemic evil. The righteous outrage of the people needs to be directed at the abolishment of the debt created money. People will never be equal in means or talent, but a new financial system can rid the world of the curse of central banking interest extortion.
Latest from Sartre