Sunday 3 January 2021

Again Adam

Mirkheim, XXI.

Van Rijn again refers to Adam:

"'Back to school, children of Adam.'" (p. 284)

But I am not sure what he thinks we need to learn. On the one hand, he says that mankind has spoiled things but, on the other hand, he says that maybe we:

"'...will learn water not only flows downhill, it reaches bottom.'" (p. 284)

But we cannot prevent water from reaching bottom!

What mankind has spoiled, apparently, is a holiday from "'...an age of crats.'" (ibid.)

- and he lists the "crat"s:

autocrats
plutocrats
timocrats
bureaucrats
technocrats
democrats
 
But surely the merchant princes of the Polesotechnic League are plutocrats? He says of the "crats" that:

"'...they all tell everybody else at gunpoint what to do.'" (ibid.)

Earlier, Coya Falkayn distinguished between:

"'The state, which in the last analysis relies on physical coercion; or a changeable group of individuals, whose only power is economic....'" (XII, p. 177)

And van Rijn reiterates:

"'...the League was once a free association of entrepreneurs what offered goods and services but did not force them on nobody. It is not private outfits what fights wars and operates concentration camps, it is governments, because governments is those organizations what claims the right to kill whoever will not do what they say.'" (p. 285)

Private outfits exercising economic power, i.e., controlling the production of physical necessities, exercise physical power. Physically coercive states arose to protect economic power. Entrepreneurs selling food do not force it on anyone but everyone has to eat something! - and most people have to work for someone else to earn a wage or salary in order to eat. State coercion exists to prevent theft. Thus, the suggested absolute dichotomy between free entrepreneurs and coercive states does not exist.

Finally, as long as we are saddled with "crats," publicly accountable democrats are obviously a lesser evil than autocrats and it makes no sense to lump them together.

5 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I don't entirely agree with what you said about "democrats." I am deeply suspicious of people who loudly rant and bray about DEEMOCRAACY. And whose ideas and policies actually end up with making a nation less democratic in any good sense of that word. I have seen too much of precisely that from the Democrats in the US, a party for which I have only the utmost possible contempt.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I think that there is something unbalanced about having nothing but contempt for political opponents! The inherently controversial and conflictive nature of political issues means that many people of good will will be on opposite sides.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

As a statement of principle, I agree. The problem is, my personal observation over DECADES has convinced me that many on the political left in the US, esp. in the media and the leaders of the Democrat party, are not honest or well meaning. And some of their stands, such as their fanatical support of abortion, are simply SICKENING.

Many, many of these "liberals" are simply not at all like YOU, Paul, in being genuinely moderate, fair minded, conciliatory, etc.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Of course, by "publicly accountable democrats," I meant just "elected representatives," whether or not they rant and bray! I think we are agreed that an electoral system is preferable to an autocracy?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Apologies if I seemed angry. I truly don't believe the Democrat Party is good for the US.

I agree on the desirability of a nation having some some kind of parliament. Both to act as a means of information for the Executive (under whatever form) to know what people are really thinking and to give assent to taxes and the other expenses of gov't.

Ad astra! Sean